Skip to main content

View Diary: Battle Plan for Iran: The Khuzestan Gambit (90% of Iran's Oil) (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What a load of crap (none)
    If Bush really wanted to divide Iraq, then why hasn't he?  Dividing Iraq would actually make a lot of sense, but it's precisely what these dumbasses don't want.  

    In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

    by Asak on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:23:48 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Have you followed anything the (none)
      Shia, Kurd dominated government did in Iraq by grabbing the oil, making autonoumous regions and leaving the SUnnis out of power and out of oil, while the US let all the militias, including al Sadr arm themselves to the teeth!

      You will see the stage has been set to split Iraq in three, informally already and eventually formally.

      •  In spite of and not because of (none)
        what Bush wanted.
        •  NO (none)
          Sherlock has it right.  The entire concept was to split Iraq up.  I can't tell you how many times I have seen this same thing come up in conversations about Iraq...I should do a diary on it.

          so to be very clear:

          IRAQ is NOT imploding because of INCOMPETENCE and STUPIDITY.  It is collapsing by DESIGN.

          I am pleading to this community to STOP propogating the myth that BUSH administration is stupid.  It just lets them off the hook for their WILLFUL malice.  These guys are fucking smart.  STOP pushing that bullshit incompetence crap.  for FUCKS sake!  STOP buying that crap.  They hide behind Bush's perceived "simpleness" to excuse their mistakes.  They use ignorance as a way to avoid punishment.  It is their M.O..  STOP BUYING their ignorant and incompetent smokescreens.  They PLAY STUPID to avoid scrutiny.  Just look at today's UAE response:  Bush didn't know, Snow didn't know.  Its always the same: when you're caught, act stupid, your enemies will think you're incompetent, which is much better than your enemies thinking that you are evil.

          Why does this work?

          Because most people WANT to believe that people are well intended.  It is the classic assumption leveraged in the classic con.  It is the hallmark of Rove, and the operating mentality of the entire Bush brotherhood.  People are more likely to believe that the failure in Iraq is do to incompetence than they are to believe that the failure was by design.  "I forgot about the utility bill!  I'm sorry, it was hidden under my mail...I'll get it in the mailbox today!"  It is classic tactics that any 4 year old understands.  

          Why is this?  Why do people here on Dailykos think that the Neo-cons aren't getting exactly what they wanted?  The neo-con dream of democracy in the middle east is a cover story.  Their faux idealism is just a cover for their real intent:  Maintaining strategic hegemony.  The neo-cons (the real ones, like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perl, etc.) don't give a shit about democracy.  The only thing they care about is power by the elites.  Their only concern for the citizens is for them to remain a stupid obedient public that complies with their masters' wishes.

          So can we please, please, please stop repeating the incompetence meme?  IRAQ is not in Civil war because of a mistake.  They KNEW that they couldn't secure Iraq with these small deployments.  They knew it and did it anyway, which demonstrates to all that they didn't give a shit about security in Iraq.  And if they didn't give a shit about security, then they don't give a shit about civil war.  In fact, they went out of their way to worsen the security situation in Iraq.  You only do that if your intent is for civil war.  That is what they wanted.  Now they can come in with arms sales to the Shias and Kurds as they raise up a new ruling elite in the south and north of Iraq to operate as US surrogates in the energy trade.

          Let me ask some questions to all of those that think that the Bush admin failed in Iraq because of Incompetence:

          Did Bush win in 2000 because his election policy was accidentally competent (i.e. LUCKY?), or because his team gamed the system intentionally, with malice and forethought?

          Did Bush fail on 911 because his policies were accidentally incompetent, or because his team gamed the system intentionally, with malice and forethought? (yes...I now what I am emplying)

          Did Bush fail in Iraq because his policies were accidentally incompetent, or because his team gamed the system intentionally, with malice and forethought?

          Did Bush fail in Katrina because his policies were accidentally incompetent, or because his team gamed the system intentionally, with malice and forethought?

          Did Bush get his supreme court picks appointed due to accidental competence; ie. he got lucky?.  Or because his team gamed the system intentionally, with malice and forethought?

          Did Dick Cheney's stock in Haliburton go up because he was lucky or because his team intentionally gamed the system, with malice and forethought?

          How smart are they?

          An election is stolen in 2000 using many different forms of vote supression taking years of coordination.  The stolen election installs a presidency soaked in oil.  You have Neo-cons backed by wingnut christains, celebrating the installation of a Republican regime that heralds from the days of Nixon.  The head of the regime is the son of the ex-CIA chief, ex VP and ex President of the USA.  This same father figure helps run the Carlyle group with friend Baker.  Baker, Bush and Cheney are all oil guys with close contacts in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait.

          On the eve of their inaugruation, Peak Oil is approaching.  They call an energy policy summit in 2001 after they are sworn in, inviting all of the big energy execs to discuss the future.  They hide the information from those meetings from the congress.  They simultaneously start up the march to war with Iraq.  Installing the White House Iraq group and the Office of Special Plans in the defense intelligence department to provide the White House with stovepiped fake intel to propogandize the US public into supporting a war with Iraq.

          The Bush admin trots out three major justifications for invading Iraq:

          That Iraq supports Al Queda and was indireclty (direclty) involved in 911.  

          That Iraq has access to WMD, either biological, chemical, or potentially nuclear (i.e. yellow cake)

          That Iraq wants to destroy the US.

          These justifications changed as time went by, in a very scripted fashion, as though the new reasons had been waiting on deck for the right moment to be moved into the lineup.  These justifications included:

          Sadam was mass murderer and we went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

          Iraqis wanted to be liberated and we needed to bring democracy to the middle east.

          The US is still in Iraq because we can't "cut and run".

          So...given all of these LIES about their real intent, how do we discern what the intent really was?

          Look at how they organized the Iraq invasion.  Their actions speak WAY the F*(K louder than their empty words.  So what were their actions?

          1.  REFUSED to listen to top military brass about the troop levels required to invade and STABILIZE Iraq (google Gen. Shinseki).  They went so far as to force he and his deputy into early retirement.

          2.  CIRCUMVENTED UN authorization (or more realistically, repudiation) of their invasion plans by forcing inspector's out of the country before they had a chance to finish their inspections.

          3.  BYPASSED official international treaties (namely the UN Charter) in organizing their own "coaltion of the willing" that was hopelessly inadequate at providing security in Iraq.

          4.  DISMANTLED the Iraq army upon seizing Baghdad, thus immediately removing the primary native security force.

          5.  SIEZED the oil fields early in the campaign, while weapons depots were not similarly guarded or secured.

          6.  BALKANIZED the country into zones, sowing inter-ethnic and religios hatred, and carving up oil rich areas and granting their control the the previously powerless populations in the north (Kurds) and south (Shia).

          7.  HAMSTRUNG our forces by failing to provide enough troops on the ground to realistically stabilize the country.

          8.  PRIVATIZED their national industries (in particular OIL).

          9.  APPOINTED negroponte to start up death squads in Iran using Shia militia.

          10.  TARGETED the Sunni minority using Shia Iraqi national gaurdsmen (see Fallujah).

          We could go on and on.

          Needless to say, their actions go beyond incompetent, they demonstrate an extreme, willful, disregard of their artificial pretexts, we interpret the failure of their cover story to be the failure of their policy.  And therein lies the rub, their policy is hidden, cloaked behind shiny paint, but rotten to the core.

          •  the problem with your theory (4.00)
            is that it begs the question; that is, it presumes what it purports to conclude.

            your argument, in short, claims that the results of the invasion are evidence of their real plan for the invasion. why? because if the results of the invasion weren't their real plan for the invasion, that would mean the planners were ... well, stupid! since these folks are not stupid, everything is obviously going according to plan!

            even if they are smart, which i'm not yet willing to concede, and even if they are evil, which i will concede, smart evil people are just as susceptible to miscalculation and bad luck as the rest of us. i really don't think everything that's happened has been according to plan. what i do think is that what has happened occurred mainly as a result of arrogance more than anything else.

            your theory simply points at what has happened and ascribes that to their plan, which makes it impossible to disprove without being privy to that plan, which is of course secret ... unless you look at what has happened!

            •  No (none)
              But did you read the whole post?

              I wasn't basing my conclusion that they wanted civil war because they got civil war.  I base my conclusion that they wanted civil war by examining their actions before the civil war ever occured (see items 1-10 above).  I then extrapolated that either all of those 10 issues were grave miscalculations (which is to say that they didn't know any better), or that they really didn't give a shit if Iraq blew up.  I think its obvious that they didn't care, and that its highly likely that they wanted it to blow up

              Its like this:

              Premise 1:  They wanted a secure Iraq
              Premise 2:  They were informed that they could not secure Iraq with 140,000 troops
              Premise 3:  They invaded with only 140,000 troops
              Premise 4:  Iraq was not secured.

              Conclusion:  Either Premise 1 is a lie, or they are incompetent (i.e. they chose a policy that did not meet the criteria necessary to meet their goal)

              I find i incredibly difficult to believe, for reason stated in 1-10 above, that the same group that rigged elections in 2000, made BOATLOADS of cash off of no-bid contracts for Haliburton, set up an incredible network of donors, lobbyists, and propagandists, rigged the Texas redistricting and then silenced DOJ objections, maintained incredible party discipline through many crisis can be considered incompetent.  These guys are CROOKS yes!  But they are really, really good at it.  They are top rate crooks.  They know how to game the system.  They took a solid Democratic presidential nominee and made him into swiftboated weakling.  These guys are not stupid.  Cheney is not stupid, bush...well ok, mayble Bush, but Wolfowitz?  Perl?  My friend know the son  of Perl, and he says that Perl is very, very keen.  

              I mean...one more set of examples:

              Did the US want democracy in Haiti?

              Did it want democracy in Honduras?
              El Salvador?
              Guatemala?

              The US is hostile to democracies in third world countries because they are too unpredictable.  What the US prefers are balkanized nations where they can play one side off of the other while the exert control through local war lords (Afghanistan) or dictatorships run by compliant elites (Saud family, Suharto, Pinochet) who are propped up by US military and arms.

              The divide and conquer strategy is colonialism crystalized.  I don't see what is so unbelievable that the US is using the same strategy here, in a resource rich country, with already strong tendencies towards fracturing.  It makes logical sense that the US would prop up the Kurds in the north and use them as managers for the northern oilfields, and use a Sistani-esque led Shia segment in the south to manage the oilfields in the south.

              The US will provide the Shia and the Kurds with the "independence" they sought from Sadam in exchange for providing Oil to the US.  There will be a shift over the next couple of months as the US presumes to throw its hands in the air over the sectarian violence, but secretly, the US will be backing the Shia death squads.  Want a model example?

              try wikipedia for Negroponte:


              Ambassador to Honduras (1981 - 1985)

              From 1981 to 1985 Negroponte was the U.S. ambassador to Honduras. During his tenure, he oversaw the growth of military aid to Honduras from $4 million to $77.4 million a year. Critics say that during his ambassadorship, human rights violations in Honduras became systematic.
              The previous U.S. ambassador to Honduras, Jack Binns, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, made numerous complaints about human rights abuses by the Honduran military and claimed he fully briefed Negroponte on the situation before leaving the post. When the Reagan administration came to power, Binns was replaced by Negroponte, who has consistently denied having knowledge of any wrongdoing. Later, the Honduras Commission on Human Rights accused Negroponte himself of human rights violations.
              Negroponte supervised the construction of the El Aguacate air base where Nicaraguan Contras were trained by the U.S., and which some critics say was used as a secret detention and torture center during the 1980s. In August 2001, excavations at the base discovered 185 corpses, including two Americans, who are thought to have been killed and buried at the site.
              Negroponte is said to have known of human rights abuses carried out by CIA-trained operatives in Honduras in the 1980s. According to The New York Times, Negroponte carried out "the covert strategy of the Reagan administration to crush the Sandinistas government in Nicaragua."
              Records also show that a special intelligence unit (commonly referred to as a "death squad") of the Honduran armed forces, Battalion 3-16, trained by the CIA and the Argentine 601st Intelligence Battalion and Army Intelligence Service, kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of people, including U.S. missionaries. Critics charge that Negroponte knew about these human rights violations and yet continued to collaborate with the Honduran military while lying to Congress.
              In May 1982, a nun, Sister Laetitia Bordes, who had worked for ten years in El Salvador, went on a fact-finding delegation to Honduras to investigate the whereabouts of thirty Salvadoran nuns and women of faith who fled to Honduras in 1981 after Archbishop Óscar Romero's assassination. Negroponte claimed the embassy knew nothing about the nuns. However, in a 1996 interview with The Baltimore Sun, Negroponte's predecessor, Jack Binns, said that a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women Bordes had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981, and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, and then later thrown out of helicopters alive.
              In early 1984, two American mercenaries, Thomas Posey and Dana Parker, contacted Negroponte, stating they wanted to supply arms to the Contras after the U.S. Congress had banned further military aid. Documents show that Negroponte brought the two together with a contact in the Honduran armed forces. The operation was exposed nine months later, at which point the Reagan administration denied any U.S. involvement, despite Negroponte's introductions of some of the individuals. Other documents detailed a plan of Negroponte and then-Vice President George H. W. Bush to funnel Contra aid money through the Honduran government.

              Guess who is ambassador to Iraq...

              I'm sorry to keep harping on it.  But these guys have been ANTI-democratic, coniving, evil bastards for years.  They are also very wily, very sneaky, and have been smart enough to stay out of prison.  They are not ordinary stupid incompetents.  They are highly intelligent criminals that habitually lie with idealistic platitudes to cover their truly evil intents.  Its late, and I'm really having a hard time being clear here, but really, these guys have been running the show for a long time, behind the scenes, in and out of government.  From black ops, Iran Contra, to Carlyle, BCCI and the rest.  These guys know what they are doing.  Christ, I don't see how that is so hard to see.

              •  your response leaves a lot to chew on (none)
                so i'll keep mine brief and focused by highlighting just a few points.

                i repeat, smart people can often do really stupid things, especially if they're arrogant enough.

                balkanization is an time-honored political tactic and an art form when practiced by experts, but if that's what the bushCo is supposedly engineering in iraq, then they're bungling it horribly. yes, you're supposed to play each side against one another, but what bushCo has done is unleash uncontrollable mayhem with no forseeable end. you're supposed to ally yourself with the strongest faction (presumably the one in control), while maintaining their loyalty by keeping their weaker foes on a leash, but what bushCo has done is thoroughly alienate all the factions. and you're not supposed introduce your own forces as a major player, a mistake that was made in vietnam. bushCo's control over events in iraq has all but completely evaporated. i see only stupidity here.

                i never suggested that building a democracy was ever part of their master-plan, nor have i ever believed it, so much of your dissertation is unnecessary. my own theory regarding their original master-plan goes like this: 1) overthrow saddam; 2) quickly install secular capitalist (chalabi) as titular president; 3) cut sweetheart deals regarding oil, money, security and military bases; rinse and repeat with iran. all relatively painless and very attractive to someone arrogant enough to try it, but not very realistic. my question to you therefore is: how is the present chaos a better plan for bushCo than the one i've outlined?

                bushCo is not monolithic; it is a composite entity comprised of many competing interests big and small (including neocons, big oil, private investors, ambitious politicians, coalition members, etc., etc., even including, in a sense, a vengeful american public) who, as all shady players do, would readily abandon the plan or even double-cross any of the other interests as soon as they thought it either more profitable or too costly. that makes formulating, agreeing on, implementing and sticking to any kind of plan very difficult. such plans tend to be very inefficient and can morph quickly from their original shape as each interest continually reappraises their own investment, especially if each interest hides or camoflages part or all of their objectives from the others. it's much more likely for plans to veer off course than hold together.

                a crucial element of the plan requires remaining in a position to control it. a key component of that plan, the american voter (who i don't see as only a passive pawn but an active participant), is poised to remove bushCo from the action if they don't see some kind of profit very quickly over the coming election cycles and i don't think they'll be able to prevent it.

      •  And you think (none)
        This was all a plan?

        I get it.  The sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq are mere creations of the United States, who has decided to spark animosity and divide up the country.  <snark>

        This is conspiracy theory, nothing more. It's damaging in fact.

        The Kurds have longed for independence since the Ottoman Empire.  The US has done everything it can to force them to remain part of Iraq except attack the peshmerga - which it can't do for PR reasons and because they are the only military force on the ground with real strength and organization other than the insurgents.

        If the US wanted to divide Iraq, they would pull back and tell the Shia' Badr Brigades and Mehdi militia to take their revenge.  Instead, the US is serious about forcing the Shia' to accept a Sunni Minister of Interior or Defense.  Why on earth would the Shia-led government do this?  The Ba'athists killed hundreds of thousands of Shia' and the Sunni political parties are linked directly or indirectly to an insurgency that wants to subjugate the Shia' once again.  The US would not be desperately trying to form a unity government if they wanted Iraq to split.  

        Personally, i think a split-up of Iraq is probably inevitable and perhaps better in the long run.  But I am convinced that it is not US policy.  Instead diaries like this divert attention from the real issues - which are whether or not the Shia' and Sunnis in Iraq can form any sort of compromise, whether Kurdistan goes free or stays part of Iraq, and how moderates in Iran can be supported in a way that might actually lead to their recovery of power.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site